From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Message-ID: <45CA9629.9060509@easysw.com> Date: Wed, 07 Feb 2007 22:16:57 -0500 From: Michael Sweet MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <789E617C880666438EDEE30C2A3E8D100105A5DA@mailsrvnt05.enet.sharplabs.com> <45CA2DDF.5000106@easysw.com> <45CA927F.2080306@Sun.COM> In-Reply-To: <45CA927F.2080306@Sun.COM> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Printing-architecture] Required prefixes for symbols in new OP specs List-Id: Printing architecture under linux List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: printing-architecture@lists.freestandards.org Cc: "McDonald, Ira" Norm Jacobs wrote: > ... > FWIW, this will work for applications linking with libraries exporting the old interface, but will not solve the problem for loadable modules that are dlopen()'d and dlsym()'d. In those cases, the shim method you > ... Do we even need to worry about this? Assuming a developer uses this method, they can still use the old names (which are documented in the specs) without relying on platform-specific weak linking support. Regardless, the only time I can see using dlopen() or dlsym() is for testing for newer versions of libraries at run-time, which will be using the new naming conventions anyway, right? -- ______________________________________________________________________ Michael Sweet, Easy Software Products mike at easysw dot com Internet Printing and Publishing Software http://www.easysw.com